TROUBLE OVER DEBT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 19976, 19 June 1928, Page 12

TROUBLE OVER DEBT.

CASE AGAINST BANKRUPT. QUESTION OF RESPONSIBILITY. A MONTH'S IMPRISONMENT. fDY TELEGRAPH. —OWN CORRESPONDENT.] HAMILTON. Monday. Three charges of contracting debts cf over £2O while an undischarged bankrupt without disclosing the fact that he was a bankrupt P.'ere denied by L inlay John McLean, agent, Onehunga (Mr. 11. T. Morton), before Mr. Justice Blair in the, Hamilton Supreme Court to-day. The charges were that between May and September, 1927, at To Kniti, while a bankrupt, accused contracted debts of £6B 15s with Albert Edward Poole, £35 6s lOd with Edith Holford, and £6O 6s 2d with Abraham and Williams. Limited. Mr. H. T. Gillies, Crown solicitor, stated that McLean was first adjudicated bankrupt in 1898. He received his discharge from that bankruptcy, but in 1.905 and 1912 he again became bankrupt. He had not received an order of discharge from the 1905 or the 1912 bankruptcies. Evidence was given by Albert Edward Poole, labourer, To Kuiti, that ho was engaged by McLean to work for Hill and McLean. Witness boarded one of the syndicate's men and altogether £6B 15s was owing to him. Edith Holford, boarding house proprietor, Te Kuiti, said that McLean boarded at her house during 1927 and incurred a debt totalling £36 6s. When asked for the money McLean told her he was working for a syndicate and that Mr. Thomas, solicitor, Auckland, would bo responsible for the account. Witness said there was still £22 due to her. Agent for Syndicate. The Te Kuiti agent for Abraham and Williams, Limited, Henry Burgess Luxford, said that McLean obtained credit from his firm to the value of £6O 6s 2d. That sum was still owing. All the witnesses stated that, McLean had not disclosed to them that ho was an undischarged bankrupt. Mr. Morton said accused was the agent of a syndicate which bought up abandoned farms in the King Country. Regarding the debts due to Poole and to Abraham and Williams His Honor said ho would rule that if it was established that the debts were incurred in the name of Hill and McLean the prosecution could not succeed. The debt due to Mrs. Holford was in a different category. Norman Russell Thomas, solicitor, Auckland, described the formation of the syndicate and its . objects. McLean was appointed manager of the syndicate and his expenses were to be paid by the firm. Witness said he explained the circumstances of the syndicate to Poole, to whom wages were due for labour, and told him that owing to difficulties that had arisen he would have to wait for his money. Witness said accounts incurred by the syndicate with Abraham and Williams, Limited, were forwarded to witness, wlio paid out £6O to them on behalf of ttie syndicate. " Accounts Incurred by Firm." Witness questioned the accuracy of Mrs. Holford's account, and said that less than £2O was owing to her. Mrs. Holford's claim against McLean was allowed by the syndicate to go by default in the Magistrate's Court, in order to save the expense of defending it. To Mr. Gillies witness said the three accounts were incurred by the firm and not by McLean personally. Witness denied that he was trying to shield McLean. George Hill, farmer, Drury, said Herbert 1< rancis Stanley Morrison and he endeavoured to form a company, which was to have been named Lands .Development, Limited. The capital to be subscribed was £IO,OOO. Mr. Thomas, solicitor, financed him to some extent. Witness said the accounts incurred by McLean would be paid. He did not dispute tliem. Witness said he always regarded himself as a partner in the syndicate, wnile McLean was a servant and his expenses were paid by the syndicate. His Honor said the principal question for the jury to decide was whether or not McLean was acting as agent for the syndicate when lie incurred* the debt at ttie boarding house, and whether they believed tho evidence for the defence. The jury returned a verdict of gnilty on the one count with respect to Mrs. Holford's debt. On the two other counts McLean was found not guilty. His Honor said the case was not a serious one. Prisoner had apparently been engaged in shady commercial transactions for some time, but he had not come within the ambit of the criminal law since 1912. A sentence of one month's imprisonment was imposed.